Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday December 05, 2009 @08:15AM
from the just-what-do-you-think-you're-up-to dept.

olsmeister writes "As previously noted here on Slashdot, Verizon Wireless has been increasing their early termination fees and actively charging non-data customers who accidentally press the wrong button and go online. The FCC has now sent them a letter asking why. The PDF of the letter can be viewed online. Maybe someone at the FCC does read Slashdot."

Slashdot is nice in that in condenses news articles from hundreds of sources. It is quite possible that there is someone in the FCC that reads/. It is also possible that said person does not read the NYT.

Slashdot is nice in that in condenses news articles from hundreds of sources. It is quite possible that there is someone in the FCC that reads/. It is also possible that said person does not read the NYT.

Well maybe and maybe not however there are a lot of government contractors and as a former one, I'd read slashdot and pass along interesting information to my contacts who, most of the time had already read it.

Maybe letters from you don't work, but letters from the FCC usually work. I've had a problem with a bank once, I wrote them and they completely ignored me. After 30 days, I've asked for help from a governmental organization, they wrote to the bank and a couple of days letter I had my answer AND the problem was fixed thanks to a simple inquiry sent by the right person/organization.

It is often helpful to ask your lawyer if he'll write letters for you when dealing with companies/institutions. They see the legal letterhead and go hmmmmmm it'll be way easier to just fix this. If you are specific and just need a letter it is generally quite cheap.

which is nice if you have a lawyer friend or an attorney on retainer...wheres the poll on/., id love to see how many people actually pay for that, or would be willing to spend the money to have a lawyer do such a thing.

Yes, of course. That rule applies generally. I was having a tax dispute with the IRS. Luckily for me, I knew I was right, and the IRS would eventually reach the same conclusion, but they were so overloaded with work generally that they kept delaying my case. (This was just a minor paperwork issue, not a court case.) In the meantime, I frankly really needed the money, which was a small amount, but I was broke. So after months of delays, I wrote my congresswoman -- immediately, I got cc'd on a letter her offi

The FCC gave Verizon two weeks to reply. And when a government entity or a large company sends someone a letter as serious as this, it usually has a statement to the effect "We'll take your silence to imply refusal to cooperate. If push comes to shove, we will take it to court."

The threat of litigation doesn't mean as much as it used to. It costs the gov the same $$ go send lawyers, do depositions, get into discovery, try and settle, then go to trial as it does the plaintiff (Verizon in this case).

That said, at least Obama's regime is doing something visible about outrageous telco behavior. The prior regime would have done a thumbs-up to Verizon.

There's a lot that Verizon does that's outrageous but does this really fall into that category? I've always found it absurd that they charge the same ETF for a el-cheapo no-frills candy bar phone as they do for a top of the line smartphone. If the theory behind the ETF is the amount of money they front to subsidize your device then shouldn't it stand to reason that the ETF should change according to the value of the device that you receive?

In any event, I think it would be a better use of the FCC's limited time and resources if they were to hold Verizon to it's promise to open up their network. That promise was made almost two years ago as I recall. Where's my market in non-carrier branded devices for the Verizon network?

... If the theory behind the ETF is the amount of money they front to subsidize your device then shouldn't it stand to reason that the ETF should change according to the value of the device that you receive?

Absolutely not! If they were to do that then someone might actually become curious as to the actual cost of the phones to Verizon. Then the fecal material would really impact the rotary air circulation mechanism.

I think it would be a better use of the FCC's limited time and resources if they were to hold Verizon to it's promise to open up their network.

Verizon already started to cover that with the DROID DOES campaign. But even if you agree with Verizon's ETF practices, I still commend the FCC for looking into the problem of making the "bill me $1.99 for browsing the web" button so easy to accidentally press.

Yes, the ETF should change depending on what device. But that isn`t the only problem. The FCC found that even when staying in contract for 23 of 24 months the ETF was only lowered to $120, when it should be much lower after that duration.

Go to a phone manufacturer's website - e.g. http://www.store.motorola.com/ [motorola.com] and you'll find plenty of phones you can buy completely unlocked and working on Verizon's (or any other carrier's) network. You'll pay a bit more; but you'll get exactly what you are looking for.

Works great for GSM based networks. Don't know how well for CDMA-based networks like Verizon's though since CMDA doesn't use SIM cards to switch easily between phon

Go to a phone manufacturer's website - e.g. http://www.store.motorola.com/ [motorola.com] [motorola.com] and you'll find plenty of phones you can buy completely unlocked and working on Verizon's (or any other carrier's) network.

Sorry, you can't buy a phone even from Motorola that will work on the Verizon network unless it's branded for the Verizon network. This means that it comes with the crippled Verizon UI and software. Believe me, I've tried. I would pay extra money for a phone that came with the Motorola OS but if I'm going to wind up with one that has the Verizon UI on it anyway why shouldn't I take their discount and get it directly from them?

No it doesn't, because government lawyers are paid much less than corporate defense attorneys.

A GS-13 attorney (mid-level; next step up would be supervisory) costs the government $45 per hour, assuming the attorney doesn't work more than their 80 hours per pay period. A similarly experienced corporate defense attorney's billable rate per hour would be about an order of magnitude higher.

That depends a lot on where they are. Beyond simply the GS-13 base pay scale, there are locality adjustments made and someone in or near DC might actually make a lot more than $45. Consider too, if they're not in trial they're working probably just their 40 hours doing administrative/inquiry stuff.

Send them to trial and you get to pay them for 60+ hours weekly, which costs you $67 per hour plus they accrue sick leave and vacation faster. OT is expensive.

Also keep in mind that the corporate lawyer's billable per hour doesn't reflect what that lawyer actually gets paid. Out of those billable hours has to come payment for support staff, plant overhead, liability insurance, some juice for the partners, etc. A lawyer billing out at $200/hour is seeing much much less than that, and as noted elsewhere, doesn't get paid for overtime.

It has come to our attention that you recently raised the cancellation fee on your phone contracts from $175 to $350 for customers who buy subsidized smart phones. We demand that you explain why you did not also raise the fee for the rest of your customers. In fact, while you're at it, you may as well up them all to $500.

Sometimes, though it just makes the company sending the letter look uninformed and foolish. If you would like to see an example of a foolish letter being sent, you can always read the Foolish Cease and Desist [demystify.info] letter a corporation sent to me a few years ago.

Obviously, the sender of the above letter was making such over the top threats, that it was clear they had no understanding of the legal process involved. I imagine the thought that this foolishness would become public information, ne

If you are serious about not knowing why it is foolish, feel free to post under your user name instead of anonymous, when you are fully awake. If you have never been exposed to the workings of the legal system in the business world, it is understandable that you may not know the details.

I would be glad to lay out the legal reasons why it is foolish to initiate legal threats against a person without evidence, or the intention of backing them up in a court of law.

No innovation here. As long as the ETF represents the losses that the provider would have had because of an early termination, I see no issue with it. If the cost of the phone is subsidized by the service contract, then an ETF should be the remaining subsidized cost of the phone. That should be specific to the type of phone, and spelled out in the contract.

Now the real question is: should the providers be allowed to even subsidize the phones via a combination service contract? I say sure because many pe

You cannot choose to ignore Verizon; they are everywhere, and they are a fact of life. They're causing you problems right now whether you realize it or not; somewhere, someone is getting frustrated with them, and getting a little more angry, which will come out in the world you live in. They're also causing economic distress which has real-world consequences. They're probably feeling the pinch of the recession; A lot of businesses have become more sleazy of late. Well, that's not true... they're just proving their sleaziness, which was already present. After all, if you have a sleaze in charge, you're sleaze. Also let's not forget that any spectrum not in use by Verizon is available for use by someone scrupulous. (Of course, the reality is that someone else unscrupulous would end up with it; that's the nature of bandwidth auctions. The People should not have to pool their money and bid to be able to use Their Ionosphere.

You have to realize though, that the people have much more power than the government could ever have, and it's a power that, theoretically, can be wielded much more quickly, and deal a much harder blow. The real problem is that people get too attached to their level of comfort, and use this as an excuse to avoid any effort required to restore any balance to the often tenuous relationship between producers and consumers. Yes, it's the dreaded "b" word (boycott). People hate this word because they claim it's

Show me where it says anything remotely like that in the US Constitution.
The only one covering your ass is you.
They do have powers to regulate monopolies in interstate commerce, but until Verizon is declared one that doesn't apply.

And don't have a car because you need no protection from auto makers and don't have a house because you need no protection from home builders, and don't rent an apartment because you need no protection from landlords, and don't buy food because you need no protection from agribusiness and.....

Truly we need no protection from corporations so long as sitting naked in a cave trying to start a fire by rubbing two sticks together is a totally viable lifestyle!

I'm sorry. Going without a cell phone is not a good option for a lot of people. Its an expected part of life for most people, and quite frankly it makes life a lot easier. I'm rather young (24), so trying to get a group of people together and meeting somewhere has always been made a lot easier by use of cell phones -- this improves quality of life. I don't worry about getting stranded somewhere with car troubles, which eases peace of mind considerably. While they can be abused annoyingly, like when som

(Really, the only reason the sight of a nipple is found disturbing is because we fetishize covering them up; that's just part of our society and I don't really care either way, but it isn't as if the very sight of a nipple is going to induce a sex drive in a 7 year old)

I don't think it unreasonable in the least that young children shouldn't be exposed to breasts at all.

There seems to be a consensus that exposure of children to breasts, nay, oral contact with breasts, is healthy and extremely reasonable. We also have plenty of anecdotal evidence that parents who unreasonably shield their children from nudity and sex are likely to induce neuroses.

During infancy an aversion to delicious nipples is a grave sign requiring medical intervention; but if later your child indicates the desire to avoid being exposed to luscious breasts on TV, it is indeed the child's right not to

so wait, you're telling me that Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson grinding all over each other singing about the hardcore raunchy sex they wish they were having during the break of an American institution sponsored by beer companies where grown men hit each other in the most violent manner possible is perfectly acceptable viewing for your kids, but a few seconds of barely visible nipple (which we all have two of on our very own bodies) crosses every line of good taste and acceptability and requires govern

If you put the price of a voice call, in 3 seconds to the (stupidly) expensive $.15 per minute, and compare it to the 3 seconds it would take to send a text message, you will find it negligible:.15/60 = $.0025 per second. $.0025 * 3 seconds / 10kbps for the voice data transfer = $.00075 dollars per kilobyte (aside: $.771 dollars per megabyte).

Now let's say, for the sake of generosity, it takes a 16KB packet total, up and down for ack, all carriers, etc., to send a text message.

that's the thing about telcos, they charge you not based on how much they need to charge you + profit margin (which is what most businesses do). instead, they just charge you however much they think they can get away with.

It is competition that is supposed to drive price to the marginal cost plus a modest profit. That's why it's extremely important to assure highly competitive markets (which the U.S. frequently fails at). In such an environment, the temptation to cheat is high and the cheaters will win every time if they're not carefully watched for truth in advertising and fraud (which the U.S. also frequently fails at).

Failure to enforce truth in advertising and failure to treat telecom fraud as fraud (including not forcin

If competition keeps the price down, then why does the cost of sending a text message keep increasing? And - what a surprise! - these rates all seem to increase very close to the same time and by the same amount across all carriers.

It's price fixing, plain and simple.

I'm a strong believer of the concept of a free market, but I'm also quick to acknowledge that as companies increase in size and power (and more importantly, buy up their competition), they need at least some level of regulation. If telcos were

Actually, that's the same as all companies try to do. Most of them don't think they can get away with much, due to competition, and they're right. Telephone companies have all set similar prices, so there's no competition.

Actually, SMS isn't quite that simple. They are (at least on GSM - I don't know for sure about other network types like modern 3G arrangements) sent out-of-band on a low traffic control channel. That is where the "140 7 bit characters" limit comes from", to fit into the maximum packet size used on that channel. You can effectively DoS a cell wrt SMS capability by sending as little as 40 messages per second.

Having said that, many price plans and offers over here offer so many text messages in the package that they are effectively free (even sometimes on PAYG). I'm sure they claw back the missing income by other means though.

There really isn't any reason that text messaging *must* be implemented over SMS

With modern phones, no. But if a better method came along yesterday the networks would still have to support SMS for years to come. Of course better methods do exist (IM apps over an existing packet data connection) but the networks try to ban those as they compete with SMS which they may much more out of...

I heard that sms packets were stuffed into some other crap the phone sends out anyways so it actually near completely free to send them. (was informed of this by a/.er months ago but i cant find the post)

That's not true at all, analog phones had a digital control channel which was used for purposes like this on occasion, but modern phones just send packets. It takes many packets per second to carry on a phone conversation; it takes one or two to send a text message. It's like if you charged people $10 for their connection to the ISP, then charged them twenty-five cents every time they sent an IM (SMS) and a dollar for every email (MMS) but allowed them to use voice chat for free. It's like Chewbacca living

What's funny right now is that I constantly hear from reviews, friends, and fellow iPhone users how much they think AT&T sucks and want to move to Verizon. Personally I think this is all BS, and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country, or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.

ALL the US carriers suck in general! People may think Verizon's coverage is the best, compared to AT&T, but notice how they are competing on coverage, and not dropped calls, network speed, features (you can't check email at the same time you are on a call with Verizon... anywhere, with any phone), etc. Also notice how all the services cost around $80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract. Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees. Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up. Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average. Notice how they all lock you into specific phones. Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract. Notice how all the cheapo phones break if you sneeze the wrong way.

Verizon is one level of shit, and AT&T is another level of shit. And we americans are forced to deal with these levels of shit, and we go around saying one is so much greater than the other.

They did invade here - and all we got out of it was T-Mobile - you know, 7th largest mobile operator in the world? They settled into the American Way of cellphone service so readily it's hard to remember they're a multinational.

i agree overall tmo probably has some of the worst coverage. however, where i live, downtown i a million+ city, tmo provides a signal in my home where at&t doesn't. it's sort of a crapshoot when picking your provider.

In Germany the Telcos are actually trying to make the market more competitive, not less. We used to have few choices*: T-Mobile, Viag Interkom, Mannesmann Mobilfunk and E-Plus. Probably a few more that I can't remember. Viag was bought by Telefónica Europe and turned into O2 and Mannesmann was absorbed by Vodaphone. A few years later, explosion.

Understand that the area of Germany is smaller than that of each of our four largest states. Only four of our states and Washington, DC have population densities greater than Germany's average of 585.5 persons/square mile. The average US population density is only 80 persons/square mile.

I believe that such vast areas of low population density cause many of the problems we face with any sort of nation-wide service, be it commuter trains or 100% cellular coverage.

As I said, Germany has almost 100% GSM coverage by all networks while the States don't, which makes randomly switching the network much harder and gives less incentive to create competition.

Your observation of the low population density causing problems does sound... sound. It makes reaching most of the population (and thus competing everywhere) much harder, no matter which technology is used.

"love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US"

European maybe, but you don't want to be subject to Canadian cell phone companies. We look at what you guys have with envy. Until the introduction of the iPhone it was cheaper to get a phone with a US carrier and then pay roaming charges in Canada than it was to just get a data plan here. Nation wide long distance? Sure, for $20 a month, and if you go outside our service area it doesn't count.

Canadian cell phone companies are so bad that they've all started up (or bought) alias companies so they can do business under a name that's not quite so reviled.

Vodafone has a 45% stake in Verizon Wireless (Verizon has the other 55%). As others have mentioned, T-Mobile is owned by the European company known as T-Mobile.

This has everything to do with regulation and standardization, and very little to do with the telcos themselves.

I had a UK prepay phone with Tesco for a while (yes...Tesco the grocery store). I used it pretty frequently, and over the course of 6 months racked up a bill comparable to one month on Verizon (including the initial outlay for a new GSM p

Verizon's business methods are shit but they do have a superior cell network compared to AT&T. This is largely because CDMA (IS95) outperforms GSM in all respects when signal conditions are marginal. i.e. congested urban areas, or in rural areas far from the nearest tower. GSM was designed around the concept of having a high density of cells in Euroland where one is never truly far from urbanity as in the states. GSM also suffers from congestion problems in underserviced urban areas because it is less b

Also have you see seen the population density and land mass of Europe compared to NA?

You're just making excuses there. Finland has about half the population density of the US, so it would have to have much worse coverage outside the main cities? Norway has about 40% of the density, so it would be even worse still? Well, no. About all that you can really say is that with the US, the national carriers are really big (and they don't offer particularly great coverage anyway in the real backwoods parts, but so?) If you're saying that they have to screw their customers over just because there's a

Its one thing to try and recoup the costs of smartphones that you all but give to customers. There is plenty to be said about that but I'll give that part a pass here.

But to setup the OS such that a user can 'go online' as described only to be billed for it is just downright sleazy. I am quite sure that if any customers called in to complain Verizon's solution to them was that they just needed to add a data plan to their contract.

Look, I'm not anti corporations/big business but so many business models have turned into 'how can we best extract money from people' rather than 'provide good service in return for money'. That type of thinking needs to change and it is the job of the government to do that. They are the best 800lb. gorilla that can reign in large corps.

American companies don't make money, they steal money. They lie and use "tricks and traps" to pick people's pockets. This crap with Verizon is typical. In California, AT&T submitted a terms of use agreement that was 1500 pages. I'm sure that it contained provisions that would have allowed them to take your house or savings. Even the almost useless state utilities commission rejected it, because the law states that these agreements must be understandable.

What kind of capitalism is this, exactly? The basic theory of capitalism says that buyers and sellers make informed decisions based on open information. How does changing the contract unilaterally fit in? First they write terms of service that allow them to change the rules without negotiation, then they double the cost of canceling. I know what the dumb ass libertarians and republicans will say: 'if you don't like it, you can quit before the change takes place.' This is bullshit because the cost of getting a new high end phone and new carrier is greater then the cost of keeping the service. How many people really change service before the term is up under any conditions?

And this thing with getting charged for a couple of bucks for hitting a button when you did not sign up for the service? That is flat out and out theft. It has nothing to do with actual capitalism. What good or service do you get for pushing the wrong button on a cell phone?

And what about the banks sorting ATM charges so users are charged the maximum overdraft fees? They sort the charges from biggest to smallest so you hit the overdraft at the beginning of the sequence and every charge after you go over the limit has an overdraft fee. Even if it is in the fine print somewhere it is stealing from consumers. Keep in mind that ATM overdraft fees were $38 Billion for the last year of published data. Not exactly chump change.

I am pro-capitalism, but there is no way the system in the US is actual capitalism. It's all about big corporate interests buying the government and then looting the economy. That's why the US is in a long term economic decline. Corporate america has adopted a model based on orgaized crime, not capitalism.

There needs to be substantial competition for it to correct itself. There isn't enough competition, yet. The only alternative is regulation. That needs to either directly correct the problem, or introduce the competition that can do it.

Capitalism is about investors investing in business. It has nothing to do with theft. Supporting or outlawing the kinds of theft so many big corporations carry out these days is neither supporting nor opposing capitalism. Capitalism existed long before corporate robbery. It can come back if we do something about it.

No... I think you're wrong here. The so-called capitalism that huge multinationals aspire to IS perverted capitalism. I've become convinced of this after becoming aware of the very cognitive dissonance you describe.

Real capitalism is the shopkeeper on the corner that is trying to compete by doing a better job. When compared to a huge multinational he seems to have very little control of his situation. The control he has rests in being able to provide a better service than the guy in the shop on the corne

Both are examples of capitalism, just in different places. Capitalism in business is okay - if it gets out of hand it's balanced by regulation. Even though it leads to less than ideal situations like the "shareholder value is God" mentality of corporations, the worst transgressions can be caught.

Capitalism in government is extremely bad. It's simply corruption. Unfortunately, it's widespread - examples being any government official who takes donations (especially those who need them to even reach the offi

My wife's parents ended up with some incidental charges for accidental data access on their phones, called AT&T, and they refunded the amounts and asked if they wanted a "data block" put in place to prevent them from accidentally accessing data again. "Yes" "OK, we're all done, thanks for calling AT&T". Next day, my father-in-law tried the data access, and it came up "unavailable", and they've never seen a charge since.

Except according to the FCC Letter and the NY Times article, even after blocking this particular mobile web data access, you still have to PAY for the blocked notification to come up since it uses data to show you that! Slick business practices Verizon has going on here.

A few years ago, I asked T-Mobile to block data on all the phones on our plan, because our phones kept on signing themselves up for monthly subscription charges. They refused outright, and in a later call, offered ANOTHER subscription charge for "parental controls" to block the data.

We're on AT&T now, which sucks in it's own special ways, but there have been no bill surprises.

Yes. I had the same experience. When I put three extra family members on my AT&T share plan, I called them and made sure to turn off all kinds of stuff -- photo texting, data, pay numbers, pretty much anything that could cost money. So far so good, but I've heard that companies can charge money to your cell phone knowing nothing more than your number, and I don't fricking understand how that can be legal.

My Father died in October. He had a shared Verizon account with my Mother. They charged Mom $100 to terminate his account, even after I explained that he was dead. I wanted to terminate Mom's account as well, as she only talked to Dad on her cell phone. They refused to do it without having to pay more than $100 beyond the first $100! They told me Mom had to keep the account until it expired in July. While she racks up charges for a service she will not use; Her income is now very limited, she should be using the money to buy food and keep the house heated.
A bit off topic to this tread but all of the paperwork and people you have to contact when someone dies is an absolute nightmare. People have been dieing for a really long time now, you would think it would be an easy one click process. Who is up for stating such a service? Oh right, Amazon already has that patented...

You got ripped. I once worked for VZW and the standard policy is that if the user of a phone line dies, the account holder can send in a copy of the death certificate or obituary and that line can be disconnected with no early termination fee. Now, your mom's line would still have been required to be open because a contract is a contract and she was still alive. But you should not have been charged for cancelling the line of the deceased.

It would be nice if they would do something about consolidation in the telecom market. I think it's a little suspicious that, of the four remaining major wireless carriers, there's a significant trend towards uniformity among plan features, hardware, and especially pricing. In fact, one might even suspect price fixing. I remain shocked every time I travel abroad at how little people pay for wireless outside the USA.

All the government would need to do is do away with early termination fees for individual

I've had a Mi-Fi (dedicated 3G Wi-Fi access point) from Verizon since the summer. Works great (trouble-free video conferencing from rural Virginia!), but there are consistently charges for SMS messages "received" -- which are not from anyone I know -- given that there's no way to retrieve them, seems kinda disingenuous.